How exactly would one ask a depressed man "nicely" to temporarily give up his cherished firearms without suggesting that he is no longer "man enough" to have them around?
Also.....The research I have seen shows that in many cases, city by city, 70-80% of the victims and shooters have criminal records...so saying that gang violence isn't the factor that accounts for gun murder is not answering the question....the left then uses "gun homicide," to imply that those actually committing murder are a majority of normal people who simply chose to murder their wives because they had a gun handy...when this is not even close to being the case. Will you be exploring this aspect of the gun debate?
So explain Korea, Korea has banned guns and has a significantly higher suicide rate than the U.S. In fact, as of 2019 stats we don't place in the top 30 countries, most of which have strict gun controls. Now explain Switzerland, they have a higher gun ownership rate than we do, about 50% where we are about 43%. Their suicide rate is about a third lower than ours. In science, all it takes is one piece of countering evidence to falsify a hypothesis, I have provided you with two pieces.
The problem with the suicide discussion? South Korea, Japan, and China, all with the most extreme gun control....have higher suicide rates than the U.S. Also, many countries in Europe, with extensive gun control laws....have higher suicide rates than the U.S....so guns really are not the issue....and just assuming that if you take guns out of the U.S. that men who committed suicide with guns would not have also done so without the gun, isn't accurate...again, see South Korea, Japan, at times France, Germany, Norway, Scotland.......
The folly of thinking that the only damage from gun ownership comes from a death is merely the tip of the iceberg of the problem. The idea that the 125k plus wounded bad enough to require a trip to the emergency room do not get included in the analysis is about all you need to know about research on gun violence in this country.
If you lose and arm or a leg or an eye--it doesn't count.
You make some great points. I'd love to share this with many friends but I suspect the Left/Right title and debate at the beginning would stop them from the meat of your argument which I agree with absolutely.
So if getting rid of all firearms saves 18,000 men's lives per year from suicide alone (obviously not addessing homicides and accidents), can we go over again why it's bad to try to get rid of them? Less guns=less deaths. You just showed that. So....... Less guns? And mental health services! Less unnecessary deaths seems like a good goal
How exactly would one ask a depressed man "nicely" to temporarily give up his cherished firearms without suggesting that he is no longer "man enough" to have them around?
Also.....The research I have seen shows that in many cases, city by city, 70-80% of the victims and shooters have criminal records...so saying that gang violence isn't the factor that accounts for gun murder is not answering the question....the left then uses "gun homicide," to imply that those actually committing murder are a majority of normal people who simply chose to murder their wives because they had a gun handy...when this is not even close to being the case. Will you be exploring this aspect of the gun debate?
So explain Korea, Korea has banned guns and has a significantly higher suicide rate than the U.S. In fact, as of 2019 stats we don't place in the top 30 countries, most of which have strict gun controls. Now explain Switzerland, they have a higher gun ownership rate than we do, about 50% where we are about 43%. Their suicide rate is about a third lower than ours. In science, all it takes is one piece of countering evidence to falsify a hypothesis, I have provided you with two pieces.
The problem with the suicide discussion? South Korea, Japan, and China, all with the most extreme gun control....have higher suicide rates than the U.S. Also, many countries in Europe, with extensive gun control laws....have higher suicide rates than the U.S....so guns really are not the issue....and just assuming that if you take guns out of the U.S. that men who committed suicide with guns would not have also done so without the gun, isn't accurate...again, see South Korea, Japan, at times France, Germany, Norway, Scotland.......
The folly of thinking that the only damage from gun ownership comes from a death is merely the tip of the iceberg of the problem. The idea that the 125k plus wounded bad enough to require a trip to the emergency room do not get included in the analysis is about all you need to know about research on gun violence in this country.
If you lose and arm or a leg or an eye--it doesn't count.
Some thoughts in response to the question at the end of this (excellent) post ...
https://twitter.com/aronro/status/1530965112038666245
You make some great points. I'd love to share this with many friends but I suspect the Left/Right title and debate at the beginning would stop them from the meat of your argument which I agree with absolutely.
So if getting rid of all firearms saves 18,000 men's lives per year from suicide alone (obviously not addessing homicides and accidents), can we go over again why it's bad to try to get rid of them? Less guns=less deaths. You just showed that. So....... Less guns? And mental health services! Less unnecessary deaths seems like a good goal